Like millions of Americans, my wife and I are watching the Democratic National Convention this week. We have settled on C-SPAN as our network of choice, for we want to hear the words and see all the speeches, and not be told by commentators what to think.
I always seem to end up at C-SPAN (it's where I watch State of the Union). But we always give the networks a try.
While I was washing dishes, my wife was listening to a speech by Lilly Ledbetter. She had settled on PBS - for her opinion was their commentators would be the most intelligent and the least intrusive. I suddenly heard her screaming at the TV (words I can not write here and calling PBS anchors a bunch of self-deluding X). This is not a common occurrence.
Basically, they were commenting on the speech as if wage inequality was something of the distant past that still does not occur today. They said - You know, it really did happen. I remember my first newsroom job 30 years ago...
My wife was upset for she knows it is still an issue.
But now for the fun part. I made a semi innocuous post on Twitter "Watching the convention on C-Span. Let me make up my own mind and hear the speakers please. Wife almost strangled PBS commentators last night."
The next morning, PBS' DC office responded: pbsengage @mcClennan sorry for the delay in replying, but what was your wife unhappy about?
I live in the social media world. But I was still floored that PBS took the time to respond. It has given me an even better impression of the network, and I am telling everyone I know about PBS' outstanding response.
There is a lesson here. Finding my post and responding cost them practically nothing (Free RSS search from Summize/Twitter) But the positive goodwill they received will last for quite a while.
If you aren't monitoring Twitter and other social media channels- you need to be. PBS is doing it and doing it right, and I am sure their budget is extremely tight. If they can do a good job, so can your company.
Tags:
social media,
twitter
Posted by Mark McClennan on August 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The view from the Motherland across the clear blue water of the Atlantic Ocean is so often a contrast of differing approaches; two countries divided by a common language, to paraphrase an eminent Irish playwright. So it plays out in both politics and communications. In the past few days Barack Obama has declared himself the winner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, with his rival Hillary Clinton formally endorsing him over the past weekend. The Illinois Senator’s slick yet professorial – and at times fervently hyperbolic – style has wooed large swathes of an American electorate seemingly hungry for change. Such has been Obama’s impact that if polls are to be trusted, then the sanguine politico could well become the first black President of the United States.
Home, and just a stones throw from Schwartz’ London offices, the tormented leader of the Labour party, Gordon Brown, seems to stumble from one self-made communications crisis to another.
Immigration, unpopular tax changes, crime, economic slowdown – pick any one of a dozen issues and Brown has seemingly struggled to control media criticism. The Fife MP may only have been Prime Minister for a little under a year but his demeanour couldn’t be of greater contrast to Obama’s. In a time of financial and political turbulence, the American people – at least those of Democratic persuasion - have turned to a man who voices the promise of hope. Britain, so much of the media would have us believe, is to be led into the same mêlée by a beleaguered and increasingly idea -shorn general.
American elections have always differed in style and tone to those in Britain. The seemingly constant public campaigning and media saturation in the US, contrasts so markedly with the ‘in the shadows’ briefings of the Westminster Village. Indeed, Obama’s campaign team has made judicious use of the internet – turning to social networking sites to raise campaign funds, increase voter registration and project not only a consistent message but an image of an engaged and youthful leader. By contrast, Brown’s recent foray into self-broadcast on the Downing Street YouTube channel was as uncomfortable to watch as it undoubtedly was for the man to film. The media’s rather predictable reaction was to mock Brown as the fish out of water he was.
The contrasting styles between these two much talked about politicians are potentially as much about cultural differences as generational and personality traits. The US culture of immediacy has, after all, given birth to Facebook, YouTube and the rest of the web 2.0 media revolutionaries. Even media friendly Tony Blair was a novice when it came to use of the internet. And just as communication style impacts media and public perception of our politicians, then cultural factors influence the style of communication between the PR community and the press too. This has been the subject of much debate between Schwartz’ US and European offices in recent weeks.
In many ways globalisation has brought our two countries closer together: American TV, music, commerce, brands – and particularly politics – have impacted greatly on the British way of life. The primaries, for example, were covered daily by the nation’s leading newspapers and rolling news stations. Even so, the three thousand miles of water that separate our offices sometimes makes it easy to forget that the US is a young country, with an aggressive, entrepreneurial economy, where short term goals come to the fore.
The pace of life here in London is fast, but the ethic of business – and therefore the media agenda – often differs from our friends across the pond. The UK media, for example, is focused on issues and trends, personalities and opinion, rather than products and services. It’s a fact that calls for international campaign management, for international PR campaigns - proving the old adage that one should always think local, even when acting global. It’s a path that many a President has trodden before.
Tags:
cultural communications,
London office,
Politics,
presidential race
Posted by Ed Barker on June 11, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Considering how the media have lavished attention on the 2008 Presidential race, it's surprising that it does not show up more on this blog. For me, the reason for not writing on the topic is my personal interest in the race; I have made an effort *not* to write about the campaign here since I am so interested in the contest outside of the office.
But Fast Company, a publication I respect and read to provide guidance to my growing clients, crossed the chasm between tech and politics in this month's issue, and it has pushed me to write about the connection now. Fast Company is not the first to discover how tech can help politics. Many other blogs report on this topic regularly, including how political social media campaigns are eliminating the need for the politicos to advertise online.
A reporter and friend of mine at the Denver Post, Kimberly Johnson, wrote about Facebook and campaign fundraising last month. Interestingly enough, Kim called me and asked for my insight on the topic after notcing a Facebook post I made referencing a previous entry on this blog (a mini-example of the power of Facebook marketing).
A quick summary of my thoughts on the topic: Both Democratic Presidential rivals are using new media to reach important demographics; as it turns out, the audience influeced by social media is a more likely Obama voter, and for that reason, Obama's online efforts have been more extensive. In each case, proper use of social media tactics depends on the strategic target for the overall campaign brand.
The article in the April 2008 Fast Company discussed the Obama brand. I had not heard that the whiz behind Obama's online efforts was none other than Facebook founder Chris Hughes. What he has done to define and extend the Obama brand is a lesson to any company:
-- Giving the power to the supporters. Through a portion of the Obama campaign website, supporters can launch their own Obama blogs. They can also use their Obama websites to organize fundraisers. The key here is the Obama site powers the transactions, and automates receiving necessary contribution information to comply with federal laws. A supporter could set up a mini site and run a fundraiser with zero involvement from the campaign staff.
-- Bringing information directly to other online communities. The article talks about how a post on a Community Connect niche demographic website drove a lot of traffic to the Obama web presence. The Obama team noticed this and responding by reaching out to Communicy Connect and ultimately setting up a presence through the Community Connect online community.
-- Understanding that social marketing is about giving up some control. A lesson to all marketers: The days of having 100-percent control over your message are long gone. While this reality is not new, Obama is the first candidate to embrace this. His team understands that bringing constituents into the process is part of Obama's brand itself---that he is about letting people invest in the campaign in any way they can. Social media is a great platform to let voters exercise this, and at the same time accentuate the campaign's brand and image.
The now-infamous "Yes We Can" video, starring a singer from the Black Eyed Peas and several of his friends, is a perfect example noted in the Fast Company article. The video is extemporaneous and viral, and some have called it the best marketing vehicle for Obama to date, which is ironic given it was made free from Obama campaign involvement or investment.
An online video created by Clinton's campaign is in many ways the exact opposite. "Hillary's Leaving the Band" is a scripted story with hired actors and is described in Fast Company as being too slick to be accepted by the online demographic.
Obama's use of social media reflects his need to connect to one of his crucial demographics-- young and tech savvy voters-- so called "millennials" who want content brought to them in a method of their choosing. One cannot fault Hillary for not catering to this demographic. It's not really her target. For her voters, the scripted, slick actors work just fine.
While Obama is more flashy, new and connected, in reality his brand is just catering to the voters he must influence, while Hillary's brand is far different. In either case, the teams behind the brands are using social media wisely. How the overall brands will impact voters is a separate discussion.
Tags:
Clinton,
Obama,
politics,
social media,
social media marketing
Posted by Ross Levanto on April 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
